================
@@ -12163,6 +12163,23 @@ bool Sema::CheckFunctionDeclaration(Scope *S,
FunctionDecl *NewFD,
}
}
+ // C++11 [dcl.constexpr]p1: An explicit specialization of a constexpr
+ // function can differ from the template declaration with respect to
+ // the constexpr specifier.
+ if (IsMemberSpecialization) {
+ FunctionDecl *InstantiationFunction =
+ OldDecl ? OldDecl->getAsFunction() : nullptr;
+ if (InstantiationFunction &&
+ InstantiationFunction->getTemplateSpecializationKind() ==
+ TSK_ImplicitInstantiation &&
----------------
erichkeane wrote:
That is what I'm wondering, I think from reading the standard that the ONLY
thing that matters is that the current one is an explicit specialization. The
kind of the 'old' thing we found is irrelevant. It should always end up being
a primary template (but even if it isn't, it shouldn't matter?). And even the
existence of it doesn't matter, so long as we know we are an explicit
specialization.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/145272
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
